Each gun has it's advantages and disadvantages. The sniper is accurate at range, but once you take it close-quarters your dead(at least in most games), and most maps are balanced so a sniper can not sit and camp(at least in the games that I play online) without the possibility of being back stabbed.Johnnyallstar said:Because when it becomes "HAH I SEE U" and one shot drop that requires minimal tactical skill, it kinda diminishes the purpose of playing.
I have the nagging suspicion that war isn't a whole lot of fun. It's not that it really bothers me when players choose to use unbalanced weapons when they're available, but I think it's the job of the developer to make sure that games have enough balance that there are more than a handful of effective strategies.slayaDmoney said:If there's a powerful weapon, it makes logical sense to use it because at the end of the day, all that matters is that you live and they die. In war they don't complain about weapons being unfair. You want your weapon to be more powerful than the enemy's.
They're just wusses.Pyromaniac1337 said:Yes they do. It's called "Nuclear Weapons Ban".slayaDmoney said:In war they don't complain about weapons being unfair.
and "Geneva convention"Pyromaniac1337 said:Yes they do. It's called "Nuclear Weapons Ban".slayaDmoney said:In war they don't complain about weapons being unfair.
Never played the first, but I kick the crap out of them in II. Honestly, Clone Commanders are more annoying.Pyromaniac1337 said:Droideka, Star Wars Battlefront I and II, especially the first one, on certain maps, like Bespin: Platforms in the first and Coruscant in the second...